It generates an enormously bright signal in the IR frequency the incoming missiles gionometer operates at.

With a system like TOW or Milan the operator looks through a scope and places his crosshair on the target and fires the missile.The missile is launched and the launcher can see the rear of the missile and determines its location by finding a flare or coded IR signal from the rear of the missile.A small computer in the launcher determines the position of the missile (by its IR transmitter) using a gionometer and calculates what the missile has to do to get back to the crosshair aim of the launcher.These manouver commands are transmitted down the wires trailing behind the missile to steer it back on course.With SHTORA on however the IR signal is lost so the position of the missile cannot be determined so it can't work out what flight commands to send down the wires so the missile will simply miss.

Note it wouldn't work on a beam rider like Kornet because the missile is looking back at the launcher to find its own position in the beam so it can't see the SHTORA signal.

It would however work on HOT, BILL, TOW, MILAN, METIS and METIS-M, KONKURS, FAGOT, Malyutka and Javelin in CLOS mode.

It wouldn't work on Kornet, ATAKA, SHTURM, and Krisantema.

To be fair Garry, the EFV is not designed to handle RPGs (neither is the BMD-4). The BMD-4, like Garry said, is basically an airborne BMP, designed to be light enough to be air dropped. The difference I heard, is that the BMD-4 has less armor, IIRC, only good for all around protection v.s. 7.62 mm rounds rather than the all around 14.5mm that the BMP-3 has.

Well the problem is that an airborne vehicle will most likely operate well behind enemy lines where enemy forces will not be first line equipped forces. The main features that are important here are fire power and mobility and the BMD-4 has plenty of both.For the Marines however they need something that will swim but also act as an armoured vehicle. The problem is that the number of coastal areas that can be successfully landed on with ships is less than 20% of all beaches/coastlines... that jumps up to something like 70% with hovercraft, but neither the EFV, nor the LTTV are hovercraft.As a boat they are excellent and much better than any BMP or BTR, but once on land they are slow, ponderous, large and not particularly well armed or well armoured.

GarryB wrote:The missile is launched and the launcher can see the rear of the missile and determines its location by finding a flare or coded IR signal from the rear of the missile.

The point is can Shotra can jam a coded IR signal , Shotra seems to me uses brute force jamming but in the optical/IR domain , as long as Shotra emit a more powerful jamming signal then the source , it would be able to supress the source or more like jam it.

Think of it in terms of a candle in front of a spotlight.When the spotlight is on the flame of the candle is impossible to see, so it doesn't matter much if the candle is a steady flame or flickering at a specific rate to make it coded.

So it's a very protected vehicle.

14.5mm AP is the least of the vehicles problems, the most common threat will be man portable anti tank weapons from RPG-18 right up to the heavy guided weapons.

I am surprised they haven't fitted it with slat armour... that would deal with most RPG rockets which proliferate.

Note Slat armour works by increasing the standoff distance of the incoming rocket as the early RPGs particularly were designed to focus their energy into forming a beam penetrator designed to start working at the tip of the warhead so if the main armour was another 30cms or so away its penetration effect was greatly reduced. Of course the main defeat mechanism is based on the way RPG-7 rockets worked.In the nose of an RPG rocket there is a material that when crushed generates an electric current. The effect is called the Piezio electric effect or something.It means it simplifies the design... a HEAT warhead needs to be detonated from the rear so the solution they used was to put some piezio electric effect material in the nose of the rocket. When the rocket hits the target the material in the nose is crushed which generates a sudden charge. The inner and outer lining of the warhead form a circuit between the piezio electric material in the nose and the fuse at the rear of the warhead which sets off the fuse and the explosive explodes from the rear forward till it gets to the front where a copper liner is crushed into a beam of superheated material blasting forward at about 4km/s.Slat armour works because unless the narrow tip of the rocket hits a slat dead on the tip will go between the slats which are strong enough to buckle the nose and short circuit the crush nose fuse so even when the rocket motor burns out the warhead will still not fire and the rocket becomes a dud.

The chance of a clean 90 degree hit with an RPG is complicated by the trajectory path of the rocket plus the movements of the vehicle and the fact that a real 90 degree hit is actually 90 degree in two directions (horizontal and vertical) results in slat armour being even more effective than one might think.

Of course with many other types of HEAT the slat armour offers little protection as a nose between the slats will not dud a Kornet for example and its warhead actually gets better penetration performance with a good stand off distance.

Actually Slat armour and Trophy would probably solve most of its problems....

Really, if you're hit with anything that resembles a rocket it's best to just pray. However, cost and weight wise it's easier to just "ignore" the other threats that your system might face, because like I've said before, you can't design a vehicle to fight everything.

But yeah, for a vehicle, it can handle any rifles that your standard infantry uses, including HMGs.

Really, if you're hit with anything that resembles a rocket it's best to just pray.

Hi, my name is GarryB and I am an athiest.

Rockets are not nearly as effective as you suggest... reread that RPG-7 book you posted yourself a while back.As long as the vehicle isn't packed with fuel and ammo, even a complete penetration from one side to the other will not knock the vehicle out of action. It might kill or injure one or two people... or it might not hit anything important at all.

RPGs are used in volleys for a reason... they are not accurate enough to specifically target a specific point on the target. The best you can hope for is to fire from an angle to target a weak spot... like the rear, roof, belly, or side.

This amphibious vehicle has enormous sides, but slat armour is cheap and not that heavy... and gives the troops lots of space to strap their gear if they need it.It is certainly better than a truck and is not vulnerable to small arms fire so really it could land in Libya right now except for the RPGs... and as I said Trophy, slat armour and lots of fire power to make standing and firing an RPG seem like a bad idea is not that hard or that expensive... considering the alternatives.

Putting a ship on a beach risks a ship full or people.

because like I've said before, you can't design a vehicle to fight everything.

You certainly can't stop everything... I am not suggesting making it laser guided bomb proof.RPGs and LAWs are common however and are worth protecting against because even in places without running water there will be RPGs or M72s.

Exactly so. If anything, the EFV is more like the A-20. EFVs are IFVs, which are not MBTs. They're bound to have less protection than said MBTs, add on slat armor would add on to the already hefty load (33 tons).

Ok... you can save a little weight and not fit slat armour... I disagree that would make it a tank... at 33 tons it is very similar in weight to the Bradley... but much much bigger and slower and less well protected...

I just think any ground force with decent AT equipment would see such a vehicle as a mouth watering target.

Really, the only difference between the EFV and the Bradley is the ERA on the Bradley, which makes it "Counter-RPG". The main difference however, is obviously the amphibious capability that the EFV has, which is essential for it's potential customer (the U.S. Marines).

medo wrote:Nice video of BMD-4. Anyone know, if BMD-4 is equipped with C4I data link? It have GPS/GLONASS navigation and 2 radios, 1 for voice and 1 could be for data.

Are BMD-4 / BMD-4M still in production? For some time it's all quiet about them.

No, BMD-4 has no C4I datalink for BMS. There is limited data transfer on the radios but no display map. The GPS navigation doesn't even come with a map, it is digital coordinates. Russian drivers get so fed up with the BS they put Garmins on the fucking console. I wish I had those in my BTR.

BFM.ru says Postnikov put the Ground Troops’ modern arms and equipment at only 12 percent of its inventory at present with, again, the goal of 70 percent in 2020. At the end of this year, the army will get its first brigade complement of the newest automated C2 (ASU) system [i.e. presumably YeSU TZ]:<blockquote>“In November of this year, we plan to conduct research on the newest ASU and hand down our verdict.”</blockquote>According to BFM.ru, he said NATO and China already have analogous systems:<blockquote>“But for us it is still the future.”

Without a C2 system then a battle management system doesn't really make sense.Once they start putting C2 systems in vehicles however the other 2 Cs follow as a natural consequence as command and control require communications and of course computers are used to do this.Making small GLONASS receivers is just part of the problem, they need a full constellation of satellites, but most importantly they need accurate fine scale digital maps.The Bakhcha is actually just a turret upgrade that can be fitted as shown in the video to the BMP-2, BMP-3, BMD, and BTR chassis. It is not really intended to add moving map displays for the driver.I would expect the next gen stuff to enter service now will likely have that sort of thing... ie BTR-82 and T-90AM etc.</blockquote>

No, BMD-4 has no C4I datalink for BMS. There is limited data transfer on the radios but no display map. The GPS navigation doesn't even come with a map, it is digital coordinates. Russian drivers get so fed up with the BS they put Garmins on the fucking console. I wish I had those in my BTR.

So BMD-4 don't have C4I datalink for now, but they have second radio and GPS/GLONASS navigation, what is necessary installation for C4I datalink. What they need is only a laptop to be connected on GPS and modem connected to second radio for radio data link with command post. Actually not that big upgrade to get C4I BMS.

The problem is not so much the vehicles... if you think in computer terms they already have radios for communication so in many ways they are like laptops with wireless connections... the problem is that they haven't decided on which network type they want to use and what software to pick to manage it all.

Obviously it needs to be relatively soldier proof with a bit of training and it of course needs to do the job and be secure and have growth capacity.

As assets are tied in to the network new features and requirements will come up.

Right now the C2 is rubbish and is verbal.

The Chinese really do have a better setup than the Russian Army in this regard.

The point is that a few computers and high speed communications links will get their net down to vehicle level.

The purpose of future combat suits like Felin is to extend that network down to the individual soldier so everyone shares information and resources and firepower can be used where needed when needed etc etc.

Felin is expensive and will likely start equipping special forces only or a few elite units while cheaper simpler less capable Russian models have already been experimented with and improved a couple of times already. The good stuff that works from Felin will likely end up as part of the Russian kits and anything not working or not needed will be removed and hopefully more and more soldiers will be networked into the system.

The Russians have bought some large scale training simulators from Germany that allow training of soldiers from individuals right up to entire brigades which should help with learning how to operate in a net centric force, and also improve interoperability with NATO.

Hm, interesting. Russian army already have working C4ISR datalinks in air defense from the highest level to the firing units and as I know artillery units also are getting C4I datalinks. They could just modify it to work properly for ground troops. It is sad, that armor units will be the last to get it inside tanks, BMPs, BTRs,etc.

Finally Russia is closing the last technology gap... Netcentric warfare. 155 Mbps is quite fast. Video calls are the most demanding on bandwidth but if proper encoding is applied to the image being transferred, the amount of transferred data could be largely reduced. I guess most of the time this network will carry data packets containing unit positions, statuses and 8kHz Mono telecomunication voip. This way one can hookup many units within the frontline where 200km operational range of the network is well enough for land based units.

You are quite right that video is probably the most demanding of bandwidth but this is made worse with encryption as this often adds to the volume of data that needs to be transmitted.Of course the extra processing required at each end to encrypt and decrypt the signal at each end shouldn't be a problem now because of multi core processor chips.

This is a Russia wide military problem because although some branches already have battle management systems in operation... the Strategic rocket forces just put their 4th gen system into service recently, and the Navy also has a system that combines air, sea, and underwater situations in a system that shares data between all vessels equipped with the system (ie new and upgraded vessels) and will eventually include space coverage too... the problem is that these systems were developed independently and integration might create problems.

During tests a few years back of a new army system some of the criticisms were that it could be attacked or listened to, but to be honest without it the army itself becomes a slow ineffective beast that operates at no where near its potential... the old voice communication system could be attacked and listened to as well but took 7 hours to get decisions to the front line. The new system took 20 minutes from frontline up to top and back down with orders and information. An enormous improvement.

BTW one of the reasons that the relatively small American force was able to overpower a larger Iraqi force was because it was so much better managed... it is very much like a team taking on individuals in small piecemeal attacks.

And for those thinking this is a NATO thing or a US thing... this is actually a German thing... lightning war or Blitzkreig involves mobility and firepower... which the Soviets had, and the British and the French, but it included communication and cooperation between the services which the non german forces neglected.